IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
V. K. MEHROTRA, S. I. JAFRI
LAKHMIR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondents
HAB. COR. PETN. 3645 Of 1986
Decided On : 08/07/1986
COFEPOSA - DETENTION - CONFESSION - RETRACTION - CONFIRMATION OF DETENTION ORDER - CONSIDERATION OF REPRESENTATION - DELAY - GROUNDS OF DETENTION - FURNISHING OF DOCUMENTS - RIGHT TO MAKE EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION - ADVISORY BOARD - HEARING - REPRESENTATION THROUGH FRIEND - PREJUDICE - SUFFICIENCY OF MATERIAL - RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES - INTERPRETATION OF ACT AND SECTIONS.
Fact of the Case:
Lakhmir Singh was detained under COFEPOSA on the ground that he was involved in smuggling of contraband goods. He challenged the detention order on various grounds, including that he was not provided with a copy of the grounds of detention in a language he was familiar with, that he was not allowed to make an effective representation against the order, that the detaining authority did not consider his representation for revocation of the detention order expeditiously, and that the order of confirmation was passed without considering the retraction of his confessional statement.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Lakhmir Singh was not prejudiced by the fact that the grounds of detention were furnished to him in Hindi, as he was able to make an effective representation against the order. It also held that there was no unreasonable delay in considering his representation for revocation of the detention order. The Court further held that the detaining authority was not required to consider the retraction of Lakhmir Singh's confessional statement, as there was other material on record to support the order of detention. The Court dismissed the petition.
Issues: 1. Whether Lakhmir Singh was prejudiced by the fact that the grounds of detention were furnished to him in Hindi? 2. Whether there was unreasonable delay in considering Lakhmir Singh's representation for revocation of the detention order? 3. Whether the detaining authority was required to consider the retraction of Lakhmir Singh's confessional statement?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that Lakhmir Singh was not prejudiced by the fact that the grounds of detention were furnished to him in Hindi, as he was able to make an effective representation against the order. The Court relied on the fact that Lakhmir Singh had made a detailed representation against the order in Hindi, and that he had not raised any grievance in his representation that he was not familiar with Hindi or Devnagri script. 2. The Court held that there was no unreasonable delay in considering Lakhmir Singh's representation for revocation of the detention order. The Court noted that the representation was received by the State Government on January 15, 1986, and that it was disposed of on January 27, 1986. The Court held that this delay of 12 days was not unreasonable, especially considering the fact that the representation had to be forwarded to various departments for their comments. 3. The Court held that the detaining authority was not required to consider the retraction of Lakhmir Singh's confessional statement, as there was other material on record to support the order of detention. The Court relied on the fact that Lakhmir Singh had been caught red-handed with a large quantity of contraband goods, and that he had made a confessional statement admitting his involvement in smuggling activities.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed Lakhmir Singh's petition.
( 1 ) INDIAN Airlines Flight No. 251 was boarded by Lakhmir Singh son of Sri Mahan Singh on Aug. 25, 1985 at Kathmandu in Nepal. Little did he realise what lay in store for him. The flight was heading towards Delhi. It touched the Babatpur Airport at Varanasi at about 12. 30 in the day. Lakhmir Singh got out of the plane. He was called to counter No. 1 by the Custom Authorities and asked to give search. No contraband articles were recovered from the person of Lakhmir Singh nor from the two bags which he was carrying at that time. On enquiry, Lakhmir Singh declared that he had no other luggage and prayed that the formalities may be completed soon as he had to proceed to Delhi by the same flight. The Customs Authorities, however, took him back to the plane as they had been alerted through information given to them secretly that Lakhmir Singh was carrying some contraband goods which he was taking to Delhi for clandestine sale. They sought permission of the Engineer In-charge of the plane and searched the toilet of the plane, in presence of two independent witnesses, where they found a V. C. R. , a bag and four packets concealed in the cavity/panel, the bag and the four packets contained a large number of foreign watches, watch chains, watch pins which, together with the V. C. R. were of the value of Rs. 5,22,724,/ -.
( 2 ) WHEN questioned about the aforesaid recovery, Lakhmir Singh admitted before witnesses of the search that he had himself concealed those goods in the cavity of the lower toilet while juice etc. was being served to the passengers in the plane. Also that he had purchased all these articles in Hongkong and was taking it to Delhi for selling the same on a higher price. He was to hand them over to one Ram Chandra in Karol Bagh, Delhi. The fact that the bags which were found concealed in the cavity were being carried by Lakhmir Singh was deposed to by the two Air Hostesses and the Flight Purser as also that Lakhmir Singh was the only Sardarji travelling in the plane.
( 3 ) LAKHMIR Singh gave another statement to the Customs Authorities next day, namely, on Aug. 26, 1985. He said that he was living in Bangkok for the last 18/19 years and that on Aug. , 28 (25?), 1985 he was carrying the aforesaid goods secretly by concealing it in the toilet of the plane during his flight from Nepal. Lakhmir Singh was taken into custody under the Customs Act and was produced before the Remand Magistrate, Varanasi on Aug. 27, 1985. The Magistrate permitted him to be kept in custody for 14 days and for being transferred to Central Jail, Naini so that he could be produced before the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Allahabad. While there, Lakhmir Singh made repeated applications for being enlarged on bail but was not successful in securing an order of release on bail. On Oct. , 25, 1985, Lakhmir Singh was served with a copy of an order of Oct. 24, directing his detention in exercise of powers under S. 3 (1) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (briefly COFEPOSA ). This was accompanied by the grounds of his detention and other relevant papers. Copies of the order and the grounds are annexures-1 and 2 to the present Habeas Corpus Petition. The grounds in substance, are in the nature of a recital of the aforesaid facts on the basis whereof it was inferred that Lakhmir Singh was involved in smuggling of contraband goods and was likely to transport such contraband goods and conceal it with a view to smuggling the same and that it was necessary to detain him with a view to stop from doing so in future.
( 4 ) LAKHMIR Singh says that soon after his arrest he was interrogated by the officers of the Revenue Intelligence (Customs) on Sept. 22, 1985 when he told them that he did not make any confessional statement out of his free-will and volition and was coerced in making so, after being severely beaten and dealt with by third degree methods. He also sent a letter on Sept. 24,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.